Ben Reiter of Sports Illustrated takes a look at this years crop of free agents and ranks them in terms of desirability and best fit. Four current Yankees show up on his list, as well as two prospective new Yankees. Here’s the Yankee related fits as he sees it:
#1 John Lackey
He’s only arguably No. 1 on the merit of his talent alone — either of the two men ranked immediately below him could occupy the top spot on the basis of skill — but this is a market in which there appears only one starting pitcher who is a proven and durable team-changer and playoff performer, and that relative scarcity increases his value. Lackey went 7-4 with a 3.05 ERA and a .239 BAA in the second half, when he rounded into form after tightness in his elbow sidelined him for the season’s first month and a half. As a Texas native, Lackey has long been viewed as a perfect fit for a Rangers club perennially in need of an ace. The Rangers’ ownership situation is uncertain, though, and the Yankees also could use a pitcher, and they usually get what they need.
CURRENT TEAM: ANGELS
BEST FIT: YANKEES#13 Johnny Damon
His strong postseason, and terrific baserunning play in Game 4 of the World Series, might have helped remind the Yankees of all the things that Damon can still do. Included among them are using his compact swing to pull balls over the close right-field wall at Yankee Stadium, and keeping left field warm until GM Brian Cashman can go after Carl Crawford either via a trade this season, or via free agency next winter.
CURRENT TEAM: YANKEES
BEST FIT: YANKEES#19 Andy Pettitte
“I’ll need to get home, talk to my family, talk to the Yankees, find out where they’re at, and then I can probably start figuring out what I might do,” Pettitte told reporters in the Yankees’ clubhouse after he won the World Series-clinching Game 6. There’s probably less uncertainty here than all that. The Yankees will want him back, Pettitte will want to return, and both will likely agree that he’s earned a contract with more guaranteed money, and fewer incentive clauses, than the one he signed in ‘09. Mark it down.
CURRENT TEAM: YANKEES
BEST FIT: YANKEES#26 Mike Cameron
While he no longer has 30-steal speed, Cameron’s other offensive skills haven’t declined all that much. He had a 107 OPS+ in 2000, a 109 OPS+ in 2002, a 108 OPS+ in 2003 … and a 108 OPS+ in 2009. He also remains a terrific outfielder (according to UZR, he ranked defensively behind only Franklin Gutierrez and B.J. Upton among center fielders last season). The Yankees have long been interested in him, and he could fit in nicely even if they re-sign Johnny Damon. Damon could DH most of the time, Melky Cabrera could play left and Cameron could play center — but he’d give Joe Girardi a lot of room to futz with his lineup, something Girardi would enjoy.
CURRENT TEAM: BREWERS
BEST FIT: YANKEES#29 Hideki Matsui
Related posts:
Unless someone else offers Toronto an exorbitant package that makes acuiring Halladay more or less impossible, signing Lackey instead of trading for Halladay makes absolutely no sense to me. The contract will probably be virtually equal in terms of cost, and the cost of giving up prospects would easily be made up for by virtue of Halladay being a much better pitcher than Lackey.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Steve S. Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Yeah, I also think whoever signs Lackey to a 4-5 year deal will regret it. He’s already declined with his stuff by his late-20s, and there are reasons for that. I’ve never thought he was a pitcher who would age well. Having already made adjustments by age 30 means that any further decline in his stuff could push him past the tipping point of effectiveness. There’s only so many adjustments a pitcher can make over the course of his career.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I suppose so although I assume that there really is no magic number or expiration date on adjustments a pitcher can make. Isn’t the point that as long as a pitcher is adjusting and adapting and the hitters are not responding to those changes, the pitcher will be successful? Mussina adjusted a couple of times later in his time with the Yanks to the point that he was a junkballer by 2008. Seemed to work out OK…
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Steve S. Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Yeah, most good MLB players make adjustments all the time. But if you’re someone who works off your fastball (like Moose/Lackey) then the more you lose off the fastball, the easier you become to hit. Moose became a pure junkballer his last year with the Yanks, but he had an extensive repertoire with which to work with. He threw everything, Lackey is more predictable. Lackey is also more of a bulldog, whereas Moose was a thinker. I’d bet against Lackey pulling off what Moose did.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Although it was only two starts, I think looking at Lackey’s Game 1 vs. Game 5 ALCS starts shows you the kind of pitcher Lackey can be. In Game 1, he couldn’t get his breaking ball to bite in the strike zone and as a result his fastball was more predictable. In Game 5 (in good weather), he was able to throw both of his cruveballs — the one he throws for called strikes in the zone and his swing-and-miss curve out of the zone — and as a result had a much stronger outing.
To me, that shows that Lackey isn’t a guy that has to live only with his fastball to be effective. It shows me that he’s actually a guy that relies a lot on the ability to keep hitters off balance by mixing his two different breaking pitches. As a result, I’m less worried about any downward trend in his fastball velocity.
All that being said, I still don’t want Lackey because, for the same money next year, the pitching market will be considerably deeper.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Steve S. Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Right, he was clearly still effective this year and I don’t dispute that. I just wonder what he looks like going forward and with a further decline in his stuff. David Cone always said that as he aged his margin for error got smaller and smaller. We saw how quickly he went downhill, it seemed to happen overnight. There is a tipping point for certain pitchers, and I think Lackey falls in that category. We’ll see.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Brien Jackson Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Oh I don’t know, I think he’ll remain effective, and for a team that needs a top of the rotation starter pretty badly he’s probably a decent investment. But if the Yankees are going to invest $18-20MM more in payroll on another starting pitcher it really needs to be someone truly elite. Halladay fits the bill, Lackey not so much. Very good, but not great.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I would prefer Curtis Granderson over the aging Cameron, but only if the price tag is A-Jax plus filler on a trade.
————–
I’m really on the fence on Granderson. He’s owed between $25.75M (2010-2012 plus buyout) to $36.75 (2010-2013, including option) which isn’t a bargain for a guy that seemed to regress off a tremendous 2007 over the past two seasons. He seems to be a roughly average defensive CF at this point according to the UZR/150 numbers.
Frankly, I think it’s a pipe dream that the Yanks could get Granderson for AJax and filler. What’s in it for Detriot to take just one prospect and the pu-pu platter other than salary relief? They’d want more.
Between signing Mike Cameron (Type B free agent) and trading prospects for Curtis Granderson, I don’t see how the Yanks are better-served with the marginally better (albeit younger) ballplayer.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Steve S. Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
It depends on how motivated they are to lower payroll. Some reports say they’re very anxious, others not so much.
I like Granderson as a long term solution and for adding certainty to the Yankee CF question. A-Jax’s upside appears to be similar to who Granderson is right now, and of course A-Jax may never reach his ceiling. Either one could be the long term answer, but one is an established MLB player and the other is a complete question mark. Also, you have to expect A-Jax to experience growing pains, and with Granderson you have a seasoned veteran.
He’s preferable to either the aging Cameron, who could finally decline this year both offensively and defensively, or to A-Jax who may never pan out.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Except that Cameron for one year still makes more sense over Granderson for three (or four). If 2010 is the year that Cameron declines, the Yanks can walk away at any time, either by DFA’ing him or not re-signing him for 2011. If Granderson’s regression continues, the Yanks are tied to a declining player with an escalating salary.
Mind you, Granderson isn’t so expensive as to be an albatross to the Yanks’ future plans the way Vernon Wells is a drag on the Blue Jays but if his CF defense continues to falter and he continues to post a league average OPS as he did in ‘09, Granderson certainly isn’t worth the cost of a Jackson, even if Jackson never reaches his ceiling.
In other words, Cameron is a far safer — and cheaper — bet for 2010.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Steve S. Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
First, you’re looking at him wrong. You compare him among players at his position, not against the entire league. Most CF’s will look bad vs the League. He was 6th in the AL at his position.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/position/cf/league/al/sort/OPS/order/true
Next, you’re buying low on Granderson, that’s the idea. If he was coming off his 07/08 seasons, you’d need a much bigger package to acquire him. His OPS was #3 among CFs in 08 and #1 in 07. I believe he got a little HR-happy last year and his other numbers suffered as a result. I did a piece on him showing the HR spray chart and the ballpark as possible explanations for this. I think he’s a good bounce back candidate, and if the Yanks agree then its a good time to buy low on him.
BTW-Don’t be so sure you can get Cameron for one year.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’m confused. Why would I compare Granderson to other CF’ers only? Hitters all compete together, not segregated into little groups. That’s what OPS+ is. I’m interested to know how Granderson matches up as a batter vs. the entire league, not just among other players at his position. We’re not playing nine games of one-on-one and being the 6th best offensive CF doesn’t change the fact that he was a league-average performer overall.
Furthermore, just because a player has a down year doesn’t mean that you automatically get to buy low. Buying low only occurs if the Tigers have given up on Granderson and will pay for the privilege to get rid of him, as the White Sox did with Nick Swisher. Have we gotten any indication from Detroit that they’re willing to dump him for C-level prospects? Granderson might be a very good bounce-back candidate but don’t you think the Tigers would know that also?
Hey, I’m not saying I’m sure Cameron would only come for a one-year deal. But I think the odds favor him signing a one-year deal with a team option for a second year, based on his age and his recent contract history. The Yanks can afford to pay him over market so perhaps his contract demands would be different for the Yanks than they’d be for another team. All I know is that Granderson comes for either three or four years. Given the choice between one (or even two) years of Cameron and the ability to keep our own prospects or three (or four) years of Granderson and trading our prospects, I’ll take the Cameron option every time.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
You want to compare him to other CF’ers because those are the only other options to fill a CF hole. Who cares how he compares to a LF when he is not interchangeable with that player? Meaning, if you do not get Granderson, you need to get one of the other CF’ers or keep your current CF’ers. Those are the people he should be compared to.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
A 100 OPS+ is a 100 OPS+. I get what you’re saying but you can’t just say “he was the 6th best offensive CF in the AL and that’s all that matters.” The 6th best offensive CF in the AL could’ve been a black hole offensively, compared to the rest of baseball and that’s a big part of what we should be looking for.
Incidentally, Cameron was 7th and Granderson 12th in a ranking of all MLB CF’ers by OPS.
(Quote)
Moshe Mandel Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I get that, and my comment was less focused on the Granderson debate than on the idea of replacement level and comparing to position. I think it is extremely relevant to know where he stands relative to his peers, and significantly more relevant than knowing where he stands relative to all hitters.
(Quote)
Steve S. Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
You compare CF to other CF because it’s a premium defensive position. They typically don’t hit as well as corner OFs or corner infielders. I’m surprised I even have to explain this, you seem like a bright guy and it’s pretty basic stuff.
Just like it wouldn’t be fair to compare Catchers to other positions, an outstanding hitting Catcher like Posada would be an average to sub par First Baseman with his bat. Yet at Catcher, he’s elite. Apples to apples.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 9:05 am
I get what you’re saying but you seem to be putting the conversation in a vacuum with your position-only comparison. After all, why did we all bitch about Jose Molina getting all those AB’s in 2008 when he was a black hole in the lineup? A bad hitter is a abd hitter, no matter what. It’s still 1/9th of your lineup.
But, in any case, again, based on the link you provided, Cameron is not only the marginally better hitter among the MLB universe of CF’ers, Granderson is exactly league average even among the 12 ranked AL CF’ers.
So, back to my original point: a free agent that costs only money that is every bit as good as Granderson, or Granderson himself, signed to a fair but by no means “value” contract that would also cost prospects?
Nothing about Granderson screams “BUY ME NOW!” that the Yanks should feel like settling for Mike Cameron is a worse decision. Maybe I’m missing something but you just haven’t convinced me statistically or economically that Granderson is a better choice than Cameron.
For the record: I’m not a Mike Cameron fan. If there’s a third choice, I’d take that too.
(Quote)
Agree that signing Lackey as a so-called replacement for Halladay is silly, given how the contracts will be similar (although probably not exactly the same). However, the Yanks should pass on both ideas if they can. Trading for Halladay and dumping the entire minor league roster on Toronto doesn’t seem to be any better better an idea than signing Lackey just because he’s this year’s best free agent starter.
The Yanks would be wise to simply wait until next year, when better starting pitchers come up as free agents (Cliff Lee, Josh Beckett, Matt Cain, Roy Halladay (if he’s not traded)…).
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Totally agree. They won a World Series with the current rotation. If Joba and Hughes do not fill you with confidence, sign one of the injury gambles to a one year deal. I am a big believer in avoiding signing free agents just because of a perceived hole if they are not good fits. Lackey would be a shortsighted move, and the Yankees should not just go for the best available option if said option does not really make sense for them.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Amen, my friend.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Brien Jackson Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Well I think Toronto is going to have to settle for a lot less than they’re starting request for Halladay, so I’d wait to see what the cost to the Yankees is before I make any sweeping pronouncements about the efficacy of acquiring Halladay. Obviously if you can acquire him without giving up Montero, Joba, or Hughes it becomes a very attractive option, assuming they can fit Halladay into the budget of course.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Steve S. Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
If the price gets too low, they’ll just take the draft picks. Also, if they can’t get a deal they like now, they can wait for the mid-season deadline and see if someone gets desperate.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I don’t think settling for 2 draft picks is an option for a guy like Halladay.
Anyway, I have a feeling that at the end of it all, if the Yankees were to offer AJax, Romine, Nova, and McAllister to Toronto it would represent the best offer they’re likely to get. And from a baseball standpoint, I think that’s a move that would make a lot of sense for the Yankees as well. You’re giving up a couple of pitchers, but you keep Joba and Hughes and still have IPK as well, so you’re not totally devoid of young pitching (and you’ve got Burnett and Sabathia signed to long term deals on top of it), they’ve got enough catching prospects that dealing Romine doesn’t hurt that much, especially since he’s not they’re #1 prospect at the position, and while AJax might be the most painful piece to part with, the return would be of high enough value to make it worth parting with him. It might be the case that Halladay simply doesn’t fit into the budget, and if that’s the case so be it, but if he does, and if a package like this one gets him, I think the Yankees absolutely have to do it.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I can’t imagine Toronto would go for that package, especially if the rumored offer from Boston (Buchholz, Bard, Kelly and another high upside type at the lower levels) is accurate. At the very least, Buchholz and Bard are big-league ready whereas none of the aforementioned four Yanks farmhands have logged any MLB service time.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Brien Jackson Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Well if a team make a better offer than they make a better offer, although I don’t totally buy those rumors either. They just don’t really make a whole lot of sense from Boston’s perspective, and smack of calculated leaks meant to try to make the Yankees antsy. Maybe they will give that up, but if they want to do that and eliminate their ability to trade for a bat they need, then that’s cool with me.
As for Toronto, their problem is that they just don’t have much leverage. They’re not going to be competitive this year, they have no chance to keep Halladay around, and compensatory picks aren’t enough of a return for losing Halladay. Add in Halladay’s ability to dictate where he gets traded, and it’s a team with significantly little leverage.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Why doesn’t it make sense from Boston’s perspective? It’s a similar, albeit slightly weaker offer than the one they supposedly made to Minnesota for Johan Santana (Buchholz, Ellsbury/Lester, Lowrie, Masterson) and would give Boston a year of Halladay/Beckett in advance of possibly letting Beckett walk for draft picks next year.
I don’t agree that Toronto has no leverage. They can always deal him to the NL, just as Minnesota did with Santana. I agree that they’d rather a package of players over two draft picks but it’s not like they’re over a barrel here. They don’t *have* to take a crap offer just because Halladay wants out. Toronto can’t reasonably take $0.50 on the dollar and will have until July to get a deal done.
CC Sabathia (Matt LaPorta) and Matt Holliday (Brett Wallace) were each traded at the trade deadline for their trading partner’s #1 rated prospect. Toronto can certainly hold out until July and see if a better market develops than “just” AJax, Romine, Nova, and McAllister.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
jeremy Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
supposeably toronto would like hitters more than pitchers so if thats the case nyy has a advantage over boston in making a deal for doc since nyy has much more/better hitting prospects. hopefully we’ll see doc in pinstripes either way!
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
MJ Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The Yanks have AJax and Montero and who else considered a “better” hitting prospect? Not saying you’re wrong, just curious who you’re referring to on the Yanks and Red Sox MiLB squads.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
jeremy Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
well when i see bostons prospects, they have some very fine pitching (bard, bucholz, kelly) but their best hitter is lars anderson who wasnt that impressive… who knows though he could be good but based on his numbers this year, dont hold your breathe on it. then lets get to the yanks hitting prospects and my oh my there are some good ones: montero, a-jax, romine, heathcott, murphy, gary sanchez, neil medcille, and even kelvin deleon (excuse some of the spelling) now yes, many of them are young and could easily end up being a bust, but they are better options than boston has and have a ton of potential! maybe i’m just dreaming over the most unique aspect of prospects which is their “potential” but if a couple of those guys live up to it, oh my will they have a nice MLB career. comments?
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I would not go for any starters this year, they would cost; to much money or to much talent.
This is a quote by Jim Kaat;
“My thinking, and I realize I’m biased because as a former pitcher I know how important it is to have outfielders who can chase down fly balls and line drives and turn potential doubles into singles and gappers into outs, just sign some decent outfielders who can hit a little bit but can save you runs with their legs and gloves. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”
I respect Jim, some of his ideas are a little out-lander but, as a guy that knows baseball he understands what it takes to win.
Even most of the fans have seen, pitching wins games but, “D” makes a good pitcher better (see Tex).
His quote points out one of the points I have been saying all year…”Brett is our CF for 2010+”. There are CF that hit better but, none that play CF any better. He has had very little time in the majors to improve his hitting and learn the pitchers. Whereas, Melky has had 3 years to prove he can play and hit, as it is, his only offensive + is power, which is offset by his – “D”.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Hi!. Thanks for the info. I’ve been digging around looking some info up for shool, but there is so much out there. Google lead me here – good for you i guess! Keep up the good work. I will be coming back over here in a few days to see if there is updated posts.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Hey – I found your site by mistake. I was searching in Bing for PDF software that I had already purchased when I found your site, I must say your website is really cool I just love the theme, its amazing!. I don’t have the time this minute to fully read your site but I have bookmarked it and also signed up for your RSS feed. I’ll back around in a day or two. thanks for a great site.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]